Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (7 August) . . Page.. 2499 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

much a presumption in favour of bail which tied their hands in terms of that they could do.

In fact, one member of the judiciary mentioned to me a concern about the Bail Act as it currently stands in relation to very serious crimes, such as murder, indicating that if Martin Bryant had committed in Canberra the offences he committed he would have had a presumption in favour of getting bail as the act stood. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission has come down with a report, which I will probably table in these sittings, although we will not have time to make any legislative changes, in which it makes some very interesting comments in relation to reversing the presumption of bail in certain circumstances. What we are concentrating on here is a narrower issue. It is an issue which most people opposite supported last time and I think that they are missing the point on it this time, unless Labor wants to distance itself from what it sees as a law and order campaign or nonsense such as that.

Mr Hargreaves and Ms Tucker to an extent last time, although she did not seem to say much about it this time, missed the point in terms of what bail is all about and what charging people is all about. If you followed their argument through to its logical conclusion, everyone would be on bail until such time as there was a finding of guilt against them. Refusal of bail is not anything to do with a finding of guilt in terms of the substantive offences. If it were, everyone would get bail. However, quite clearly, the law in both this territory and the states recognises that there are instances where people should be remanded in custody prior to their matters being concluded one way or another. Indeed, there have been instances where people have been refused bail and ultimately found not guilty. Of course, there have been many instances where people have been refused bail, been found guilty and, if they have spent a bit of time in custody, had that taken into account in terms of their sentence.

I think Mr Hargreaves really misses the point there in saying that these people have not been found guilty and might not be found guilty in some instances. That is not the purpose of bail. In the report of the scrutiny of bills committee of April or May which was on the table when we discussed the first bail amendment bill of this year there was quite a good dissertation on that and he should read it. It is not that the police or the public prosecutors are not doing a good job. The members of the AFP and the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions do a very good job, but they are constrained by what the acts tell them, as are members of the judiciary, and they can only do so much. I think the police do an excellent job. If members of the judiciary tell the government that there are improvements that can be made, I think we should listen to them, certainly when it seems to be very much in the public interest to do so. So I think that some of the comments of Mr Hargreaves were somewhat confused.

Mr Rugendyke was short and to the point. In the famous words of McTiernan J, I concur. I do not think I can add too much to what Mr Rugendyke said; it was a good, common sense approach. I reiterate that this bill closes the remaining loopholes identified by a judgment in the Supreme Court and in concerns expressed and comments made by the Chief Magistrate, not just to me, but also publicly. The community has a right to be protected. This law strikes a good balance between the rights of the community, the rights of victims, and the rights of defendants who appear before the courts. The police feedback I have been getting since the first amendments were made has been very positive indeed. The feedback I have been getting from the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .